If when you see someone saying that it feels good not to line the pockets of A**holes "Sorry, I meant Shareholders" and think "I'm a shareholder, does he mean me?" I would ask how much that retirement fund is "Lining your pockets" off his work.
The context of his statement makes your attempt to redirect his aggression towards the people he worked for into a broad insult to you and other people with a retirement account that gets diversified by the company holding your retirement account (companies that gamble people's retirement savings and sometimes LOSE THEM) is more than a bit of a reach.
I didn't attempt to redirect anything. I pointed out that his messaging is unclear, and does in fact identify "shareholders" in a broad sense. You are assuming that he meant something much more specific. You may be right, but he intentionally chose to leave it more vague, and as he is a communications expert, I am assuming he had a purpose for doing so.
If he wanted to make the point that you are making, he could have done so. He made a point that allows you to interpret it to suit your worldview, and others to interpret it in their's. In other words, spin.
Stretch first.
Oh noooo... you'd be unimpressed.
I'm also unimpressed by your uncalled for snark. I am addressing you civilly. You seem to want to make my criticism of his post personal. It's not; I don't know the guy and I wish him well. I'm just stating my opinion, which is that as a prospective employer I would find that particular post worrisome.
If he had the credentials to do the job, the availability to do it, and the skills and material you needed, would this stop you from hiring him?
Hard to say. It's certainly not a point in his favour. In my profession, lack of discretion is seen as a very serious problem. Typically, we shortlist down to 3-5 strong candidates, and then we look at them very closely.
Which is fine, sure. But if -this- would cross the line into "You're unhirable" then I don't think the problem is on this person's side of the office desk.
I think it represents a social expectation that ever aspect of an employees life belongs to their employer. And that's just weird.
That seems like a stretch, to me. It seems to me like a reasonable response to have concerns about someone badmouthing both their former employer and a potentially wide swath of people with intentionally vague language.
Like I get it if they're attacking a minority group or shooting off strings of expletives or posting other widely objectionable material.
Objectionable to who? Calling shareholders an expletive is a pretty widely directed insult.
See this? This right here is an admission I don't think you intended to make. That he might become "Disillusioned" implies there's an actual Illusion to see through. That your company would do things that make statements like his a response he or others might give.
I take it you've never worked with anyone who's had issues with their employer that were not entirely the employer's fault. I have worked with plenty of folks who have had beef, some of it justified, some of it not.
And rather than acknowledge that and address it, most companies would rather not hire people who don't comply with the company line after they've left.
You are using this one instance, that none of us know much about, to justify some pretty broad statements about employer/employee relationships everywhere. I quite like my employer. I don't agree with every decision and policy 100%, but who does? I feel like I have a voice, and if I left for a new job, which I have considered when other opportunities have arisen, I wouldn't badmouth them just because I didn't agree with every decision.
Most companies would rather not hire someone who is likely to badmouth them when they leave. Sometimes, employees have very reasonable complaints. But not all the time.
How would you feel about employers badmouthing their employees after they leave?
If you want to keep this from happening, treat your employees well and it won't be an issue. Read more of what Greg Tito has said about his time at WotC and particularly the last year or so he was there.
So all employees are saints, and can never be unreasonable or vindictive? Obviously, we all agree that employees should be treated well. I'm an employee, and I expect to be treated well. Treated well does not equal my employer requiring my agreement for every decision.
If someone owns a business where they're scared to hire someone who badmouthed their previous business for fear their own business would be badmouthed? I would immediately wonder how they treat their employees.
That could be an issue, or this could be a person who goes on vendettas and doesn't mind taking it public. When you're hiring someone, you don't always know the full picture, so this would be a cautionary sign. You'd want to look into it.
Dude was treated badly and spoke up about it.
No he didn't. He didn't say anything about how he personally was treated. He made a broad and not entirely clear claim about corporate policy. One that in a broad sense, I am sympathetic to, assuming that you are interpreting his statement correctly. I still would be unlikely to hire him in my profession, but given that he is being hired to do spin, it's probably not an issue. Or he wouldn't have done it. In fact, given that he is going into an ideological job, being willing to troll a bit is probably an asset in current American politics. I would not be surprised if he was making a bit of a statement to impress his new employers.
www.enworld.org
